L-1 H1 Lot VII_VIII QAForm Amend 5.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 60 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N6134022R00300001
View the file
Other files
Show all 31
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| General Information | |
| Offeror Name: | RFP Questions |
| RFP Number: | N6134022R0030 |
| # | Document | ||||
| (PWS, RFP, Attachment) | Reference Paragraph | Question | Answers | ||
| 1 | RFP | SOLICITATION QUESTIONS | Please extend the due date for questions to 8/17 for all bidders to review the government furnished information. | The Government has extended the due date for questions to 8/10/2022. Section L of the RFP has been amended to reflect this update. | |
| 2 | RFP | Proposal Submission | With the extension of the Questions due date and the vast number of unanswered questions, can the proposal Due Date be extend an additional 15 days from 06 September to 21 September? | Yes, the proposal due date is extended to 21 September 2022. The RFP has been amended to reflect this update. | |
| 3 | RFP | Proposal Submission | Please grant a 14 date extension to the due date. |
1) Still waiting on Q&A answers that impact pricing.
2) Still waiting on NPSI that has impact on what is in the repository that impact pricing.
3) Addition of brownout writeup to section L that was not in draft
| 4) Specific subvendors that are critical to providing coherent offer are struggling with deadline and number of bidders. | An extension was granted as the proposal due date is extended to 21 September 2022. The RFP has been amended to reflect this update. | ||||
| 4 | PRF | Appendix H para H.3.3.14.1 | Do the existing UPSs used on Devices 2F196B-3 and 2F227-1 meet the requirements for "UPS Standard" as stated in Spec Appendix H para H.3.3.14.1? | Yes, the existing UPS used on Device 2F196-B and 2F227-1 meet the requirements for "UPS Standard" as stated in Spec App H. | |
| 5 | General | Is it the Government's intention to construct new pads and interfaces for the newly containerized Devices 2F196B-3 and 2F227-1 based on the Supplier generated Trainer Facility Reports for those devices? | No, the requirement is to use existing concrete pads and conduits. | ||
| 6 | SOW | 3.2.1.3.2.1 | SOW paragraph 3.2.1.3.2.1 Display Device Surface Cleaning requires that the contractor shall perform a number of inspection, cleaning, and sealing tasks for devices 2F226-1, 2F197B-2, 2F227-1, 2F197-1, 2F227-2, 2F206-1, 2F215-1, 2F196B-2, 2F227-5, 2F226-3, 2F227-4, and 2F227-3. Can you clarify that the surface inspection, cleaning, and sealing tasks required for the devices listed in SOW paragraph 3.2.1.3.2.1 are not required for devices 2F196B-3, 2F226-2, 2F196B-4, and 2F197-1, which are not listed in this requirement paragraph? | SOW paragraph 3.2.1.3.2.1 has been revised to require the cleaning of optical surfaces and sealing of mirror edges for four additional devices 2F196-1, 2F196B-3, 2F196B-4 and 2F226-2. | |
| 7 | PRF | B.3.1.8 | PRF Appendix B paragraph B.3.1.8 Geometric Accuracy specifies absolute and relative geometric accuracy requirements for all devices, which are typical of performance measured from solid screens or glass mirrors. Can you confirm that the same geometric accuracy requirements specified in PRF B.3.1.8 apply to device 2F196-1, which uses a film mirror? Can the currently measured geometric performance for device 2F196-1 be provided as GFI? | PRF paragraph B.3.1.8 has been revised to specify a relative geometric error tolerance for the 2F196-1 that is achievable with the existing Mylar-based collimating mirror system | |
| 8 | PRF | Appendix B | PRF Appendix B includes performance requirements, such as image contrast, which if not met by the current devices could require significant modification effort and on-site device downtime; which in turn could affect the Offeror’s proposal. Will as-run test procedures, including measured performance, reflective of the most current device configuration, be provided GFI for all H-1 upgrade devices with the final RFP, in order to support the Offeror in determining the extent of device modifications required to meet the required image performance; if currently not met? | No, the Government does not intend to provide test results from previous testing on any of the devices. |
The specified display system performance is similar to performance specified and delivered in the most recent upgrades for each device. The requirements for contrast ratio and relative geometric error have been revised to reflect performance levels previously achieved by the specific display technology and training device.
| Accordingly, please note that SOW paragraph 3.2.1.3.1.1 has been revised to add flexibility in the design approach by allowing for either the reuse or replacement of specific display system components. | ||||
| 9 | SOW | Par 3.2.1.11 | Please provide additional details on this requirement. The IOS, Host, and visual IG already support adding external loads into the simulation. Is this requirement to add more loads or change the aerodynamics of the existing loads? | Once the load is attached, currently the Aircraft aerodynamics are not affected, the requirement is to change the aerodynamics depending on the attached load |
| 10 | CDRLs | CDRLs | The Tech Pubs CDRLs seem to be inconsistent for the amount of reviews required. For example in Exh E H-1 TDM Lot 8 Tech Pubs CDRLs.docx, CDRL AE002 it does not state for a First submission, it just starts with Second submission. Are the CDRLs accurate or will there be 3 submissions for each CDRLs? | Yes, there will be three submissions for each Tech Pubs CDRL except for COTS CDRLs, which will have two submissions. The CDRLs will be updated to reflect this language. |
| 11 | RFP | Section L, Part B, Paragraph 1.2 | The RFP details the time and duration for the Government testing periods as 10 hours per day, 5 days per week. Will access to the trainer site and Devices be available to the contractor 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, including holidays for the duration of the on-site portions of the program? | No, the devices will not be available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week including holidays and weekends to the contractors while on-site. |
| 12 | RFP | Section L, Part B, Paragraph 1.3.b.2 | The last sentence in this paragraph states “The total percentage of HW and SW shall equal 100%.” Is this two requirements: a breakdown of the hardware to equal 100% and a breakdown of the software to equal 100%? | For both Hardware and Software, offerors should provide a breakdown showing what percentage will be COTS and what percentage will be new development. |
| 13 | RFP | Section M, Part A, Paragraph 4.1 | Does the identification of proposed changes to the SOW, PRF, or DO count against the proposal page limit, or will this happen during negotiations? | Yes. Any proposal information that is excluded from the page count limit, if any, has already been identified in the solicitation. |
| 14 | PRF | 3.1.4.1.2, and A.3.1.3.3.x | The answer to Q&A 19 says that "All ships and aircraft modeled in the TEN require airwake effects." PRF sections A.3.1.3.3.(4, 6, 7, and 8) provide specific air and sea models that are required for the visual system. The TEN has the capability to display many more planes and ships than what the PRF calls out, for example: AC-130H, A-10C, F-22, B-2, B-1B, E-3B, E-2C, KC-10A, AH-64D. Please confirm that the air and ship wakes only need to be provided for the items listed in the PRF Appendix A and not all the models that the TEN has listed in PRF Appendix F. | The PRF has been revised to clarify that airwakes are required only for the following entities and associated 3-D models, when the ownship is in their proximity, regardless of whom or what system is controlling their motion: |
| 1. All aviation and air-capable ships | ||||
| 2. AH-1Z and UH-1Y formation flight players | ||||
| 3. CH-53 and MV-22 |
| 15 | SOW | 3.2.1.16.1 | The answer to Q&A #30 says that the YUMA devices are connected to ADVTE, however, SOW 3.2.1.16.1 says that an ADVTE connection needs to be made to those devices. | Once delivered to Yuma, these devices are planned to be connected to ADVTE. There is no concrete date planned for this yet. If the connection to ADVTE is not available at Yuma, stand-alone testing shall be conducted. |
| 1) Please clarify if the K-Bay devices currently connect to ADVTE. | 1) K-Bay device are not currently connected to ADVTE | |||
| 2) Will the Government be providing a secure network infrastructure via an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to allow connection of these devices to the ADVTE? | 2) The Government will provide access to the Marine Corp Enterprise Network on NIPRnet for transport/connection to ADVTE. | |||
| 3) How is it anticipated that the Internet connection will be accessed from the containerized device? | 3) The devices shall have the necessary hardware components to connect to the Government provided access point. | |||
| 16 | SOW | 3.2.12 | 1) Is it anticipated that the two devices relocated to Yuma will be located adjacent to each other? | 1) Yes, both H-1 devices will be located adjacent to each other. 2) Please reference SOW section 3.2.1.16.1 |
| 2) Is it anticipated that the two devices will have a network connection capability between them? | ||||
| 17 | PRF | Appendix G, TECR List | Answer to Q&A #34 says "as-run" TTPRRs will not be provided until PAC. It would be very beneficial to the proposal effort to know the results of the current TTPRR runs and QTGs to determine the amount of effort needed to scope out the extent of some of the TECRs. Without more details about the failures that generated the TECRs/DRs it will be very difficult to determine the extent of work needed to resolve a given problem. Two examples: | The Government cannot find references to M55060648 or any 2F196B-3 TECR referring to loss of visuals. The 2F196B-3 is slated to get visual system refresh which is expected to address the noted issues. |
The TECR related to TEN maps for device 2F227-1 have been removed from Appendix G.
QTGs were provided as GFI.
TTPRRs will not be provided during the proposal period.
| 1) 2F196B-3, M55060648, Screen shall not fade out and lose visuals. | ||||
| a) Please provide more details. | ||||
| b) When does this occur, is it reproducible, does it only happen on this device? | ||||
| c) Has any research been done: is this a projector problem, one IG channel or all IG channels? | ||||
| 2) 2F227-1, #125, TEN Map Scales for Hawaii, The device shall include the following TEn maps scales: 1:100, 1:50, and Imagery. | ||||
| a) Please provide more details. | ||||
| b) Is this a limitation of the TEN? | ||||
| c) Does this problem exist only on this device? | ||||
| 18 | RFP | Section B | In Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices, the Government has dropped all the provisioned items from the CLIN list that were in the draft solicitation and states that they are now placeholder CLINs for the future in section B.1 FUTURE PROVISIONED ITEM. However, they are listed in section C.1 STATEMENT OF WORK with the SOW references that were included in the draft solicitation. Does the government want provisioned items to be included in the proposed efforts or left out? | As stated in the RFP Paragraph C.2, the Government will issue a Request for Proposal for Provisional Items, as necessary for each individual PIO CLIN. After the PIOs are negotiated then they will be added to section B using one of the B.1 reserved CLINs. |
| 19 | SOW | 3.2.3.3.1, 3.2.3.3.2 and 3.2.3.3.3 | The solicitation lists the planned award dates for options in B.2 OPTION EXERCISE TERMS and provides RFT dates in F.2 READY FOR TRAINING (RFT) DATES. The SOW requires in section 3.2.3.3.1 System Requirements Review-II/System Functional Review (SRRII/SFR) that a combined review which could be understood to be all requirements for all devices based on how the PDR and CDR are defined. SOW section 3.2.3.3.2 Preliminary Design Review (PDR) requires a review for all devices (actually states Lot 7 and Lot8 combined). SOW section 3.2.3.3.3 Critical Design Review (CDR) states the requirement is for a separate CDR for Lot 7 devices and then a second one for Lot 8 devices. With the planned award dates and RFT dates listed for the CLINs it would require that design work for all Lot 7 devices be completed for devices that have not even been awarded in the second option be completed early to make the RFT dates for the early devices. The design work for devices to be awarded at a future date would have to be charged against devices that have been awarded. Understanding the governments probable intent is to try and reduce overall SETR costs here is a proposed solution: | The SOW has been updated to change the requirement from “CDR” to “CDR and CDR TIMs" |
Updated the SOW for 3.2.3.3.1 to "conduct a combined SRR-II/SFR for contract line item numbers (CLINs) awarded at contract award, and TIMs for training devices CLINs awarded after contract award to address the design differences"
Updated 3.2.3.3.1.2 to "conduct a PDR for training device contract line item numbers (CLINs) awarded at contract award, and TIMs for training devices CLINs awarded after contract award to address the design differences;
We will have TIMs in place for SRR-II/SFR and PDR to reduce risk for devices
| With the initial award have an SRRII/SFR that covers all 16 devices, then a PDR and CDR for each award group (initial and three options) unless the first option is exercised shortly after initial award then those next two devices could be included. Then for following option award groups do a delta requirements analysis / preliminary design phase followed by a PDR and then do a delta Detailed Design phase followed by CDR. It would be inappropriate to bury design efforts for an option that may not even be exercised against earlier work on previously awarded CLINs. | ||||
| 20 | SOW | 2.1 | Can the Government provide the TMCR 17-18 Technical Manual Contract Requirements (TMCR) - Training Device Modernization (TDM), 10 August 2017 document? | The TMCR will be provided at the Post Award Conference. |
| 21 | SOW | 3.1.1.7.1 | What are the current information exchange options that are compatible with NMCI to meet the requirement for "a online site that meets current Federal Government, Navy, and NAWCTSD cybersecurity standards"? Is DoD SAFE an acceptable online information exchange site? | Reference the SOW 3.1.1.7.1 Online Information Exchange. DoD Safe may work at the present time but there is no guarantee that it will be successful in the future. |
| 22 | SOW | 3.1.2.12.b | When will the "government provided Program Protection Plan" be available to the Contractor? | The Program Protection Plan (PPP) will be available to the contractor at the Post Award Conference. |
| 23 | SOW | 3.2.10 | There are several references to the Trainer Facilities Report CDRL but there doesn't seem to be a DD Form 1423-1 for a TFR. | TFR CDRLs AD08 & AD09 were developed for the relocation of the two trainer devices from K-Bay to Yuma only. |
| 24 | PRF | A.3.1.2.11 and A.3.1.3.2 | PRF requirement A.3.1.2.11 Imagery resolution, specifies that "the imagery used in visual and sensor database terrain area bound by the cross-country flight areas specified in A.3.1.3.2 shall a. be geo-specific, and b. have a resolution of two meters or less, throughout the entire cross-country flight area. | The requirement specified in PRF A.3.1.2.11 for imagery resolution for the entire specified cross-country flight areas outside the continental United States (OCONUS) specified in A.3.1.3.2 has been revised to reflect the known coverage included in the GFI NPSI datasets |
| Considering the very large cross-country flight areas specified in A.3.1.3.2 and the "worst case" imagery resolution of the current USMC OCONUS NPSI, can you confirm whether the requirement for imagery resolution of two meters or less in the entire cross country flight areas applies to both the CONUS and OCONUS regions of the visual database? | ||||
| 25 | PRF | A.3.1.3.1.7.1 | PRF requirement A.3.1.3.1.7.1 Imagery within 20 NM of airfields, specifies that "the area within a 20-NM radius circle centered on the geometric centroid of the longest runway for each primary and secondary airfield shall have geo-specific imagery of exclusively one-meter or better resolution" | The requirement specified in A.3.1.3.1.7.1 has been revised to require the same imagery resolution around airfields as in previous H-1 solicitations, except for requiring imagery resolution of 0.5 meter within 2 NM of the geometric centroid of the longest runway for each primary and secondary airfield. Nevertheless, for the CONUS and Hawaii cross-country flight areas, the area surrounding airfields and other specified areas and sites of interest may be subject to more stringent imagery resolution requirement specified in the revised PRF paragraph A.3.1.2.11 which apply to the entire land surface in each cross-country flight area. |
| Considering the imagery resolution extents for the airfields in the current USMC OCONUS NPSI, can you confirm whether the requirement for geo-specific imagery resolution of exclusively one-meter or better applies to both the CONUS and OCONUS regions of the visual database? | ||||
| 26 | PRF | A.3.1.3.1.7.5 | PRF requirement A.3.1.3.1.7.5 Secondary airfields, specifies that "secondary airfields shall have the following features with characteristics modeled IAW the AIM and any applicable document(s) specifically referenced in connection with a corresponding requirement: | Yes, the Government can confirm that Secondary airfields also need to be modeled with taxiways and signs. |
| a. Runways, taxiways, aprons, and parking ramps with standard marking, signs and lighting, placed at their geo-specific locations" | ||||
| Considering that based on previous database program requirements, and as reflected by the USMC NPSI, modeled taxiways and signs are modeled mostly on Primary airfields, can you confirm that Secondary airfields also need to be modeled with taxiways and signs? | ||||
| 27 | SOW | 3.1.2.5 | The SOW says "The Common Access Card (CAC) shall be the principal identity credential for supporting interoperable access to DoD installations, facilities, buildings, controlled spaces, and access to U.S. Government information systems IAW FAR 52.204-9". Recent dialog with the H-53 Marine Corps support team at NAWCTSD is indicating there are going to be restrictions for Contractors use of CACs in the very near future. Specifically, for individuals that "need access to a facility, this is a different process that will be handled by the site. DO NOT submit a CAC request just for facility access. We need a list of the personnel, what building they needs access to, the dates and times for this request. The facility access process is a much less expensive and intrusive background check, and needs to be submitted somewhere around 60 days or so before the person(s) needs access". | The CAC is the principal identity credential for access on this effort and we do not expect any deviations from the SOW requirements as written. |
| Is there any expectation or likelihood that the Contractor's use of CACs will be effected in some way that will result in a deviation from the SOW requirement as written? | ||||
| 28 | RFP | F.2 | Based on the table in Section F.2 of the RFP and assuming a Contract Award of January 2023, the two Kaneohe Bay devices (CLINs 0400 and 0500) need to be moved to Yuma and upgraded within 18 months, while the third device (CLIN 0100) in the basic award doesn't have to be delivered until many months later. Since there will be lots of NRE for the different subsystems across both H-1 platforms and trying to minimize the downtime on the two K-Bay/Yuma devices it would be more efficient to perform the NRE on a device different than the two that have to move locations with a strict timeline. Another risk is having both 0400 and 0500 achieve RFT at the same time. This would mean that the contractor and Government would have to support two simultaneous testing periods, adding further risk. To help reduce the downtime and risk to the program, can 0100 be delivered at 18 MACA, 0400 be delivered at 21 MACA, and 0500 be delivered at 24 MACA? | No, we do not desire to extend the upgrade of the Yuma 0400 and 0500 devices. Delivery dates in Section F are the required dates, however the Government is open to an earlier schedule. |
| 29 | PRF | A.3.1.3.2.7.4 | Can geographical coordinates be provided for the database ranges, TERF routes, and secondary reporting points listed in PRF section A.3.1.3.2.7.4? | The PRF has been revised with specific coordinates for most the ranges,TERF routes, and secondary reporting points specified in A.3.1.3.2.7.4. The remaining coordinates will be provided by SRR II/SFR. |
| 30 | PRF | A.3.1.3.2.2.3.1 | Can geographical coordinates be provided for the database features, landmarks and places of interest listed in PRF section A.3.1.3.2.2.3.1? | All areas and sites of interest specified in A.3.1.3.2.2.3.1 are listed with location/are coordinates, in both MGRS and Lat/Long, in PRF 200037A. |
| 31 | PRF | A.3.1.3.2.2.4.1.c | Can geographical coordinates be provided for the Camp Pendleton area TERF routes listed in PRF section A.3.1.3.2.2.4.1.c? | Specific coordinates for the checkpoints on the specified Camp Pendleton TERF routes specified in 3.1.3.2.2.4.1 c will be provided with the Camp Pendleton Military Installation Map (V795SCPPENDLMIMNLT) which will be provided by Data Freeze, in the context of the visual IPT and Database Working Groups. |
For purposes of proposal development, offerors need to consider that the specification defines the entire R-2503 restricted area as a TERF area.
| The requirement in A.3.1.3.2.2.4 b has been revised to reflect the existing subdivision of R-2503 into R-2503A, R-2503B, R-2503C, and R-2503D, and the removal of R-2533. | ||||
| 32 | PRF | A.3.1.3.3.6 | Can equivalent surface models be delivered as substitute for the models listed in PRF section A.3.1.3.3.6, such as in cases where a requested vessel has been decommissioned or when newer vessels of the same class are available in the delivered IG library? For example, substituting the LHD-1 Wasp, with the newer LHD-7 Iwo Jima, etc. | No, the Government does not accept a substitution of the requirements. |
| 33 | PRF | A.3.1.2.13 | PRF section A.3.1.2.13 Elevation data point spatial resolution, requires that unless otherwise specified, the terrain area elevation post spacing utilized in the visual and sensor databases shall b. incorporate all digital terrain elevation data (DTED) Level 3 elevation data provided as GFI. | The PRF has been revised to accept incorporation of terrain elevation data of equal or better resolution available from commercial sources, in lieu of using the GFI NPSI DTED III in the areas for which GFI NPSI DTED III is provided. |
| Can you clarify whether GFI DTED data must be used, even if to replace existing elevation data in cases where portions of the delivered database have already been generated using better resolution than GFI DTED, or where elevation source data of the same or better resolution for new developmental database areas is available from commercial sources? | ||||
| 34 | RFP | Att+6+GFI_GFS+List+H-1+Lot+7_8.xlsx | RFP Att+6+GFI_GFS+List+H-1+Lot+7_8.xlsx lists the NAVAIR Portable Source Initiative (NPSI) sample datasets as being provided on request with the RFP, and NAVAIR Portable Source Initiative (NPSI) datasets (full GFI set) being provided after contract award. | No, the H-1 Lot 7&8 solicitation does not intend to release any database design documents besides those that are released by the NPSI program. All GFI NPSI documents released by the NPSI program are contained in the media, together with the GFI NPSI datasets. |
| Can the Gov provide the full set of database design documents associated with the full set of GFI NPSI at the time of the RFP, in order to help in determining the state of the GFI NPSI and help derive the extent of database and model development required for the proposal effort? | We have provided the NPSI data per Contractor's request. | |||
| Offeror's are advised that Database Design Documents or equivalent documents that might be distributed with the NPSI datasets may not reflect the performance or functionality of the H-1 training devices or the Lot 7&8 solicitation requirements. Offerors are reminded of the "as is" condition with which GFI NPSI datasets are provided and encouraged to focus on the SOW and PRF requirements specified for the Lot 7&8 program. | ||||
| 35 | General | Will there be office space available for the Contractor to use during the staging and install of the devices at Yuma? | Yes, there will be limited office space available for the Contractor use during staging and installation of the devices. | |
| 36 | General | Do all trainers have the same power requirements? Concern is regarding 2F226-3 and 2F227-5 in Japan. What facility power is currently being utilized on these devices? Is the trainer Power Control System (PCS) designed to accept multiple types of voltage/frequency inputs? | Yes all the trainers have the same power requirements. The power required for each simulator is: Current (Amps) Voltage Phase kW 200 A 208/120 V 3P 5 50 208/120 3P. Yes the PCS can accept multiple types of voltage/frequency inputs. |
| 37 | General | After contract award, will electrical and mechanical diagrams be delivered in native/editable format? If so, what format(s) can we expect? | No. All files are delivered in .pdf. | |
| 38 | SOW | 3.2.1.4 | Can the government provide operational and interface data for the following components: | No, at this time the Government cannot provide this information. The information will be provided when it becomes available. |
| ADTS-DTU; | ||||
| STT | ||||
| GAT | ||||
| DI-WIA | ||||
| 39 | SOW | 3.2.1.2 | Does the Government have all the source code required to rebuild the Host, IOS, SIM I/O, etc. computer real-time executables and required utilities? | No. The Government only has host and VIOS source code. The rest are COTS |
| 40 | SOW | 3.2.1.2 | Does the Government own the intellectual rights to all the source code required to rebuild the Host, IOS, Sim I/O, etc. computer real-time executables and required utilities? | No. The Government only has intellectual rights to the Host and IOS. |
| 41 | SOW & PRF | SOW 3.2.1.6.2 | There are gaps in the drawing packages for various devices with regard to the IOS Console Installations. Do these drawings exist and when will they be made available? | The Government provided all related drawings that it has for the trainers. |
| PRF 3.1.9.2 | ||||
| 42 | SOW | 3.2.1.7.4.1 | What format will the Copter model be delivered? In the GFI folder, the autogenerated software is provided. The notes in the code lead us to assume the code was autogenerated from SimuLink. Will the Simulink models be provided? Will this be provided by the Govt or will we have to go thru Bell to obtain? What format should be maintained for this contract? | The COPTER GPR model is built primarily in Fortran. Any additional models, if necessary, would need to come through Bell. The COPTER GPR model can remain in FORTRAN in its original format. |
| 43 | PRF | 3.1 | Is there a Debrief station? Some of the supplied documentation reference this system. Is this a computational system that needs to be replaced per SOW 3.2.1.2? Also, Debriefs usually have a strong tie-in to the visual system. | There is no debrief station. Debrief and Visual System (VS) have been removed from PRF section 3.1 |
| 44 | SOW | 3.2.1.7.11 | This requirement is very vague. Who will define what is worn? How can this be bid with this little information? | The SOW requirement was updated to change from "worn" to "degraded panels that prevent the user from reading the panel labels." |
| 45 | PRF | 3.1.3.4.1 | Do any of the FTD/FFS devices have MIL-STD-1553 or ARINC-429 data ports to meet the requirements of PRF 3.1.3.4.1? | Yes, ARINC-429 is on all devices expect for 2F227-2, 2F227-3 and 2F227-4 devices which have MIL-STD-1553 data ports. |
| 46 | PRF | 3.1.8.3 | The last sentence of this paragraph says "…in the cueing systems described below…", however, there are no additional subparagraphs that describe the cueing systems. | PRF 3.1.8.3 was revised to include the following language: |
| "The worst-case throughput delay time (i.e. from step input to first detectable response in each cueing system) of the visual system, secondary motion system, and primary cockpit instrument cueing systems shall not exceed 100 milliseconds." | ||||
| 47 | PRF | 3.1.9.3.4 | What are the latest versions of these manuals and when will they be provided? How late in the program would the Government expect a newer version to be included? | All items listed are the latest versions and have been provided as GFI. The Government expects the latest version to be included at CDR or CDR TIM. |
| 1) NAVAIR NTRP 3-22.4-AH-1Z | ||||
| 2) NAVAIR NTRP 3-22.4-UH-1Y | ||||
| 3) NAVAIR 01-H1AAD-1 | ||||
| 4) NAVAIR 01-110HCG-1 | ||||
| 5) NAVMC 3500.104C | ||||
| 6) NAVMC 3500.20D | ||||
| 48 | SOW | 3.2.1.15 | This requirement states the contractor shall install and integrate two TRMCs in each training device to meet the requirements in 3.2.12. However, SOW 3.2.12 deals with the relocation of the devices from K-Bay. Please clarify the requirements for SOW 3.2.1.15. | SOW 3.2.1.15 "The contractor shall install and integrate two TRMCs in each training device " will be deleted. |
| 49 | General | Do the Government provided aircraft OFPs need to be modified in order to run on the training devices? | No. We use the exact OFP from the aircraft on the training systems. | |
| 50 | SOW & PRF | SOW 3.2.1.15, PRF 3.1.6,and PRF 4.3.1.7 | SOW 3.2.1.15, and PRF 3.1.6, 4.3.1.7 references new OFP for the TRMCs. Can you please provide the new FRD documenting the changes? | The Government will update the OFP on the TRMCs. The FRD is not required by the contractor and will not be provided. |
| 51 | SOW | 3.2.1.7.9 | Please clarify which safety rails are being referred to in this requirement. There are movable safety rails on the AH-1Z devices that drop out of the way after the aircrew enter the cockpit, but no similar rails on the UH-1Y devices. Does this requirement only apply to the AH-1Z devices? | Yes, the safety rails are only for the AH-1Z devices. |
| 52 | PRF | 3.3.12.1.3 | Due to the low number of FIPS 140-3 compliant products and services available on the commercial marketplace, it is requested that Section 3.3.12.1.3 and 3.3.12.1.11.1 be changed to permit the use of FIPS 140-2 products when there are no validated FIPS 140-3 solutions available. | FIPS 140-3 is required. |
| 53 | PRF | 3.3.12.1 | PRF 3.3.12.1 invokes the entire RMF control set which requires assessment for applicability during the initial Cybersecurity RMF Meeting after contract award. There are several RMF controls that typically get tailored out for Marine Corps programs if they are not applicable for the platform or if they impose an undesired operational hardship. For the purposes of estimating the scope of the RMF implementation, can the government confirm whether this program expects to tailor controls in a manner that is consistent with other Marine Corps platforms at the same security categorization? | The Government cannot commit to tailoring the controls at this time. |
| 54 | SOW | 3.1.3.5 and 3.2.9.9 | Similar to the other training tasks (SOW 3.2.9.7 and 3.2.9.8), please confirm that the Cybersecurity and OEM Training will only have to be delivered once for each site. | Yes, the Government can confirm. |
| 55 | SOW | 3.2.9.7.c and 3.2.9.8.i | Please confirm that the Instructor-Operator and Device Maintainer Training will be delivered at Yuma, AZ and not K-Bay, HI, as noted in both SOW sections. | Instructor-Operator and Device Maintainer Training will be conducted at YUMA. |
| 56 | SOW | 3.2.9.10 | During the 30-day IOC period, how many hours per day is the Contractor support required? | 12 hours per day, excluding federal holidays and weekends. |
| 57 | RFP/SOW | SectionB/3.2.9.10 | Under which CLIN should the Initial Operational Capability (IOC) period be priced? | Please price the IOC period into the Modernization Upgrade Device (and the Modernization Upgrade and Relocation) CLINs. The CLINs are as follows: 0100, 0200, 0300, 0400, 0500, 0600, 0700, 0800, 0900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, and 1600. |
| 58 | RFP | Section B | Should the pricing for the Cybersecurity and OEM Training be included in the same CLINs as the Instructor Operator and Maintenance Training (i.e. 0104, 0204, …)? | Yes, please price the Cybersecurity and OEM Training in the Instructor Operator and Maintenance CLINs. |
| 59 | Spec | Appendix B | With the exception of the TECRs, do all sixteen H-1 devices currently meet the image performance requirements of PRF Appendix B, such as brightness, resolution, contrast? If not, can as-measured image performance for all current H-1 devices be provided GFI with the RFP? Note that performance items such as image brightness and contrast could depend on multiple design factors, such as screen gain, and coatings, in addition to the requested projector upgrade. Therefore, knowledge of the current device performance vis a vis required performance is essential in order to support the Offeror in determining and scoping the extent of the proposed device updates required to comply with all the RFP PRF Appendix B image performance requirements. | The performance requirements specified in the Lot 7&8 solicitation for all display system performance parameters is similar to either the specified performance or the delivered/verified performance for the last acquisition/upgrade of each device or type of device. |
In addition, in response to offeror's questions. specific requirements in the PRF have been revised to reflect the capability of the specific display technology in use in the 2F196-1 and the contrast ratio performance difference between AH-1Z and UH-1Y devices.
As it stands, the PRF requirements for FOV and contrast ratio are the same as specified or verified for each device during it's most recent acquisition or upgrade. The requirements for the other display parameters such as resolution and luminance are also commensurate with the performance specified or verified in previous acquisition.
| With the intent of addressing offerors' potential concerns regarding costly display system components, the SOW has been revised to clarify that, besides trainer-specific tasking to clean optical surfaces in all trainers and refurbish the 2F227-2 screen, the Government does not require the contractor to replace or refurbish the existing real image display system main (dome) projection screens, or collimated displays back projection screens or mirrors, as part of the modification. | ||||
| 60 | RFP | Solicitation | In the solicitation the F.2 READY FOR TRAINING (RFT) DATES and those listed right after the table by CLIN (the DELIVERY INFORMATION section) do not match up. The delivery of the devices in containers in the DELIVERY INFORMATION section are back to 2028 (all devices). Are the RFT dates listed the real due dates for the devices? | Yes, the RFT dates in F.2 are the time periods when the specified CLIN and its associated training device upgrades are complete. |
| 61 | SOW | 3.2.12.3.2 | Can Post-Move Inspection/Test be done in conjunction with CPI and the K-Bay devices not have to be brought back into their pre-move conditions to verify that the devices are in their pre-move condition before we modify them? The wording in the SOW could allow for us to move them and then check them out before doing the mods. There is no time for this given the RFT dates. | Yes. That is acceptable. |
| 62 | SOW | 3.2.12.6 | Device Storage – SOW paragraph 3.2.12.6 says we need to store the devices coming out of K-Bay until they go in the containers, is there a required move out date out of K-Bay? | No. The K-Bay trainers can be removed at anytime after contract award to facilitate their final delivery to Yuma. |
| 63 | RFP | All Link 16 CLINs | Is it the Government's intent to award the Link 16 sub CLIN at the same time as the other device CLINs. As an example will CLIN 0103 be awarded at the same time as 0100, will 0203 be awarded at the same time as 0200, etc.? There is a cost and downtime impact if Link 16 is not awarded at the same time as the modernization upgrade effort for each device. | Per section B.2 of the RFP CLIN 0103 is an option whereas CLIN 0100 is a base CLIN therefore it is the Government's intent to award the option CLIN anytime from contract award to 31 January 2024.It is not our intent to award the LINK16 CLINs at the same time as the device base CLINs due to funding availability. |
| 64 | SOW | 3.2.1.2.1 and 3.2.1.2.2 | Do the Operating System and Computational system upgrade requirements apply to the devices that are called out in 3.2.1.7.7.1 Secondary Motion Engineering Analysis Study and 3.2.1.7.7.2 Secondary Motion Refurbishment? Or will the Tech Refresh of the Secondary Motion system be proposed as part of the Study and refurb. We believe the Secondary Motion system is a proprietary computer from FlightSafety. |
A system upgrade with operating systems needs to meet the requirement SOW 3.2.1.2.1 The Secondary Motion computer is not proprietary.
| 65 | SOW | 3.2.12.2 | Facility/Containerized Analysis - We understand we are required to do a facility analysis for containers and devices being relocated to Yuma. If the available concrete slab(s) and base utilities tie ins are either not where required or are not up to the needs of the relocated devices, how long after the facility analysis is provided to the Government will the site be ready for container/device installations? | The site in Yuma is ready. It has power, water, cooling at the correct locations. |
| 66 | Spec | 3.3.12.1.2 | The Flightsafety/Bell trainers use a FlightSafety realtime computer to communicate with the UEI racktangles. Do these computers fall under the Cyber requirements in PRF 3.3.12.1.2 Cybersecurity requirements for operating systems (OSs)? Meaning, do they need 1) a new computational system 2) to be 64bit 3) to Run Windows 11? The FSI system in the documentation is delivered as a Flightsafety COTs system. | Yes, these computers fall under the Cyber requirements in PRF 3.3.12.1.2. |
| 67 | RFP | Page 46, Section F.2 | CLIN 0503 LINK 16 Integration has an RFT date of Q3 FY2026. Is this year correct? | Yes this is the correct year. |
| 68 | RFP | Section B | Several CLINs seem to duplicates. Could you please clarify the following: | The CLINs are not duplicates. Each CLIN is for specific work. Please see RFP Section C.1 STATEMENT OF WORK reference table showing each CLIN and the corresponding SOW work. |
| 0601 & 0602 Modernization Upgrade Device 2F226-2 | ||||
| 0701 & 0702 Modernization Upgrade Device 2F196B-4 | ||||
| 1501 & 1502 Modernization Upgrade Device 2F227-4 | ||||
| 1601 & 1602 Modernization Upgrade Device 2F227-3 | ||||
| 69 | Att 2 PRF 20037A H-1 Lot 7_8 | A.3.1.3.3.6 Carriers and air-capable ship models | If a requested moving model has been decommissioned or newer vessels of the same class are available, can vendor substitute as needed? For example the LHD-1 Wasp, while still active, vendor does have the newer LHD-7 Iwo Jima available. | Please refer to the answer listed in #32. |
| 70 | Att 2 PRF 20037A H-1 Lot 7_8 | A.3.1.3.2.7.4 Asia-Pacific database ranges, TERF routes, and secondary reporting points | Missing coordinates for : | The PRF has been revised with specific coordinates for most the ranges,TERF routes, and secondary reporting points specified in A.3.1.3.2.7.4. The remaining coordinates will be provided by SRR II/SFR. No, the VDBDDs do not contain the coordinates and will not be provided. |
| Rodriguez Live Fire (ROK) | ||||
| Susong Ri (ROK) | ||||
| Pilsung (ROK) | ||||
| R-130 (Draughon Range at Misawa) | ||||
| Hokkaido Northern Viper - Hokudaien, East Chitose, Yasubetsu, Kamifurano | ||||
| Hokkaido TERF/LAT area (Northern Viper) | ||||
| Big Time (secondary reporting point, Okinawa) | ||||
| Causeway (secondary reporting point, Okinawa) |
| Is the current VDBDD is available? | ||||
| 71 | Att 2 PRF 20037A H-1 Lot 7_8 | A.3.1.3.2.2.4 West Coast database TERF areas | Camp Pendleton, CA R-2533 (Restricted Area). We don't find this particular region in our current references related to ranges. Is it possible that this number has recently changed or is a typo? Are bounding coordinates available? | The requirement in 3.1.3.2.2.4 has been revised to reflect the existing subdivision of R-2503 into R-2503A, R-2503B, R-2503C, and R-2503D, and the removal of R-2533. |
| 72 | Att 2 PRF 20037A H-1 Lot 7_8 | A.3.1.3.2.2.3.1.8 Camp Pendleton features, landmarks and places of interest | Missing Coordinates for: | The PRF has been revised with most of the coordinates that were missing for the referenced areas and sites of interest. Any missing location information will be provided by SRR II/SFR. No, the VDBDDs do not contain the coordinates and will not be provided. |
| San Mateo 62 area | ||||
| School of Infantry 52 Area | ||||
| Horno 53 Area | ||||
| Las Pulgas 43 Area | ||||
| Las Flores 41 Area | ||||
| Edson range | ||||
| Stuart Mesa housing area | ||||
| Margarita 33 Area | ||||
| MACS 32 Area | ||||
| Edson range 31 Area | ||||
| Chappo 22 Area | ||||
| Del Mar 21 Area |
| Is the current VDBDD is available? | ||||
| 73 | Att 2 PRF 20037A H-1 Lot 7_8 | A.3.1.3.2.2.4.1 ('c') Camp Pendleton area TERF routes | Missing coordinates for: | Specific coordinates for the checkpoints on the specifed Camp Pendleton TERF routes specified in 3.1.3.2.2.4.1 c will be provided with the Camp Pendleton Military Installation Map (V795SCPPENDLMIMNLT) which will be provided by Data Freeze, in the context of the visual IPT and Database Working Groups. |
| Case Springs | ||||
| De Luz | For purposes of proposal development, offerors need to consider that the specification defines the entire R-2503 restricetd area as a TERF area and that the specified TERF routes are contained within R-2503. | |||
| Devil Canyon | ||||
| Mike | Please note that the requirement in 3.1.3.2.2.4 b has been revised to reflect the exisiting subdivision of R-2503 into R-2503A, R-2503B, R-2503C, and R-2503D, and the removal of R-2533. | |||
| Pulgas |
| If the current VDBDD is available, it could potentially help us find these coordinates. | No, the VDBDDs do not contain the coordinates and will not be provided. | |||
| 74 | Att 2 PRF 20037A H-1 Lot 7_8 | A.3.1.2.13 Elevation data point spatial resolution | Depending on the scope of provided data which we don't have any information on to date, this can 1) have a large bearing on rework required for existing areas (related to labor) and 2) engender cases where elevation source data of the same or better resolution that is available or currently modeled against needs to be replaced with lesser quality data (which can result in a lesser quality product). Would it be possible to have flexibility to use commercial sources of elevation to meet these same level of fidelity? | The PRF has been revised to accept incorporation of terrain elevation data of equal or better resolution available from commercial sources, in lieu of using the GFI NPSI DTED III in the areas for which GFI NPSI DTED III is provided. |
| b. incorporate all digital terrain elevation data (DTED) Level 3 elevation data provided as GFI | ||||
| 75 | Att 2 PRF 20037A H-1 Lot 7_8 | A.3.1.3.1.3 TERF scenes | Is it possible to get copies of NAVAIR 01-H1AAD-1 and NAVAIR 01-110HCG-1 that are referenced related to the imagery resolution requirement? | The referenced NATOPS manual is provided with the GFI/GFS. The GFI/GFS will be provided when the associated GFI request and NDA forms have been processed IAW with the instructions in the solicitation. |
| Please refer to section 9.5 of the referenced NATOPS manuals for information regarding the NATOPS-recommended airspeeds for each TERF mode. | ||||
| 76 | Att 2 PRF 20037A H-1 Lot 7_8 | A.3.1.2.11 Unless otherwise specified, the visual and sensor database terrain area bound by the cross-country flight areas specified in A.3.1.3.2 shall have geo-specific imagery of exclusively two-meter or better resolution | These cross country areas are enormous, including entire countries . This res requirement also implies that all existing sites within these regions need to have imagery updated to reblend/balance them as well as the imagery cost and derived work (watermask, etc). | The requirement specified in PRF A.3.1.2.11 for imagery resolution for the entire specified cross-country flight areas outside the continental United States (OCONUS) specified in A.3.1.3.2 has been revised to reflect the known coverage included in the GFI NPSI datasets. |
| This requirement also would imply re-modeling and feature adjustment for a significant number of global db sites based on image updates. Also, the majority of this area is in Southeast Asia which is the most difficult in terms of clouds (available sources would need to be 'combined' to remove clouds which is additional significant cost beyond base cost of coverage. Would the government consider revising this requirement? | ||||
| 77 | Att 2 PRF 20037A H-1 Lot 7_8 | A.3.1.3.1.7.1 Airfields shall have 1-meter or better within 20nm | This requirement is expanded significantly from the previous H-1 spec (Feb 2018). It used to be 1-meter for 5nm, 5-meter for 20nm. Now it's 50cm for 5nm, 1-meter for 20nm (with no 5-meter specific req beyond 20nm). This will severely impact cost as most all OCONUS sites will need updated imagery to meet this 20nm req. Would the government consider removing/revising this requirement? | The requirement specified in A.3.1.3.1.7.1 has been revised to require the same imagery resolution around airfields as in previous H-1 solicitations, except for requiring imagery resolution of 0.5 meter within 2 NM of the geometric centroid of the longest runway for each primary and secondary airfield. Nevertheless, for the CONUS and Hawaii cross-country flight areas, the area surrounding airfields and other specified areas and sites of interest may be subject to more stringent imagery resolution requirement specified in the revised PRF paragraph A.3.1.2.11 which apply to the entire land surface in each cross-country flight area |
| 78 | Att 2 PRF 20037A H-1 Lot 7_8 | A.3.1.3.1.7.5 Secondary airfields shall have the following features with characteristics modeled IAW the AIM and any applicable document(s) specifically referenced in connection with a corresponding requirement: | Secondary airfields are being requested to have modeled taxi ways and signs. These features are typically only present as modeled features on Primary airfields. The labor to add modeled taxi ways and signs to all the secondary airfields from the spec will be extremely high. Would the government consider removing/revising this requirement? | No, the requirements for signs and markings on runways, taxiways, aprons and parking ramps in secondary airfields will not be removed or revised. |
| a. runways, taxiways, aprons, and parking ramps with standard marking, signs and lighting, placed at their geo-specific locations; |
| 79 | SOW | 3.1.5.4 HMSD | Will this require any visual feeds from the rack? Symbology? Other types of rendered video? | The HMSD (Helmet Mounted Sight and Display) EU (Electronics Unit) generates the symbology for the display. The data generated is routed to the HMSD display module. EU receives data from the Host using HMSD 1553 bus. The VRS system uses data on the HMSD bus to recreate the Display for the Instructor to monitor the HMSD display. |
| 80 | Att 2 PRF 20037A H-1 Lot 7_8 | A.3.1.1.1 | All simulated weather is very large scope - can the government clarify? | The term "all simulated weather" in PRF par. A.3.1.1.1 refers to the atmospheric and meteorological effects whose simulation is required in PRF paragraph A.3.1.4.4 |
| 81 | Att 2 PRF 20037A H-1 Lot 7_8 | A.3.1.4.1.1.4.1.1 | What's the proposed NVG solution? Sim or stim? | The PRF does not intend to articulate or suggest any proposed NVG solution. The requirements for NVG training actually require functionality to stimulate AN/AVS-9 NVGs with near infrared and visible light and also require specific effects to be simulated. Please refer to the PRF in general, and to section A.3.1.4.6.1, NVG stimulation and simulation. |
| 82 | Att 2 PRF 20037A H-1 Lot 7_8 | A.3.1.4.5.3.4 | How many vectors are on the ownship aeromodel? Is the ownship aeromodel GFI? Any limits or specific types in the wingmen MDS matrix? | Although the offeror's question refers to a visual system requirement in Appendix A, pertaining to simulation of reduced visibility landing and brownout simulation (RVL/BO), the implementation of which requires ownship thrust and other aerodynamic data, the offeror's question delves with design aspects and decisions for which offerors are required to develop and implement compliant solutions. |
The Ownship aero model is the COPTER GPR model that will be provided as GFI at the Post Award Conference.
| 83 | Att 2 PRF 20037A H-1 Lot 7_8 | A.4.3.3 | Can the government provide a defined number of entities and a training area that is a suggested MAX? | The offeror's question, specifically, the references to a maximum "number of entities and a training area" are unclear and not understood. Nevertheless, the question seems to pertain to either design decisions or derived requirements that offerors are expected to arrive at or develop and establish on their own. As it can be inferred from the verification requirement in A.4.3.3, the verification methodology will rely on simultaneously enabling visual system functions and special effects and inserting host-, TEn- and (if connected) network-controlled entities and other features and functions, to increase the computational demands on the visual system and verify that the system delivers the required performance simultaneously. In regards to questions about maximum number of entities in the training scene, offerors are encouraged to review the requirements in the PRF in general, and in paragraphs A.3.1.2.4 and A.3.1.4.7, particularly A.3.1.4.7.1. |
| 84 | SOW | 3.2.1.15 | SOW 3.2.1.15 states "The contractor shall install and integrate two TRMCs in each training device to meet the requirements in 3.2.12." SOW 3.2.12 is titled "Relocation of Training Devices 2F196B-3, 2F227-1 located at Kaneohe Bay, HI". Is the correct interpretation of the requirement to install and integrate TRMCs into the two devices being relocated, or for all 16 trainers? Additionally, there is no reference to TRMCs being provided as GFE. Is the correct interpretation of the requirement that the contractor will need to independently procure the TRMCs? | SOW 3.2.1.15 "The contractor shall install and integrate two TRMCs in each training device " will be deleted. |
| 85 | SPEC | H.3.3.4 | Spec H.3.3.4 requires the container to withstand 200 MPH wind. This requirement is typical for Okinawa, but seems excessive for Yuma, AZ where these devices will be located. Recommend changing the wind requirement to 140 MPH. | Spec H.3.3.4 is revised to 140 MPH for Yuma. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .